1951-05-02

[Stage Direction]
Sixth and seventh reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.- Mr. Winkler.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: It gives me great pleasure to
lay on the table the first annual report of activities under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, and special provisions for emergency protection and reclamation of maritime dikelands, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1950.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: May I ask the
minister if these reports are being distributed to hon. members?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will have them distributed as soon as enough copies can be made.



CANADA FORESTRY ACT


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker,
hon. members may be interested to learn of certain steps the government proposes to take to co-operate with provincial governments under the Canada Forestry Act, 1949.
With certain exceptions, such as the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory, national parks, federal forest experimental stations and Indian lands, the responsibility for forest resources falls within the jurisdiction of provincial governments. However, forests do not stop at provincial boundaries. When dealing with the Canada Forestry Act, parliament recognized the national importance of our forest assets, and through this legislation enabled the federal government to help co-ordinate, where feasible, and otherwise assist the efforts of provincial governments and others in the field.
Accordingly, early last year I wrote to the appropriate ministers of all ten provincial
governments, seeking their views and suggestions as to how we might co-operate under the terms of the new act so that the maximum long-term benefits might be derived from our valuable forest assets.
From subsequent conversations it seemed clear that all concerned were of the opinion that the goal must be sustained yield; that is, the rate of depletion-by cutting and by loss from fire and disease-must not exceed the rate of replacement by natural growth and reforestation. I believe it is the general view that federal government participation should be with the understanding that any assistance given would be used to further progress toward the goal of sustained yield.
Most provincial governments, and indeed many private operators, are working toward sustained yield. I have no doubt that in some instances it has been achieved. It may well be, however, that on a national basis annual depletion exceeds regeneration in such of our forest areas as are now accessible for practical exploitation. But in the absence of reliable and complete forest inventories, it has not been possible accurately to assess the true situation. It is most important, then, that a nation-wide forest inventory should be completed at an early date.
Another important step is to encourage greater efforts in reforestation. Many cutover areas regenerate themselves naturally, but for others steps must be taken to start and stimulate new growth. Forest cover on these areas is necessary, not only for the development of forest products but in the interests of soil conservation, flood control, cover for wildlife, etc.
There are, of course, many other aspects of a successful forestry program. Protection from fire is one of the most important and expensive. By and large, provincial governments are placing on this phase of the problem the emphasis it merits. Research is also of major importance, and in this field the federal government is already carrying out a well-rounded program.
As hon. members know, the defence program must now take priority, both as regards efforts and funds. The government considers, however, that some steps are warranted at this time to stimulate progress toward sustained yield of this resource, which is vital to our economy, both in peace and in war.

Canada Forestry Act
Accordingly, I communicated with all provincial governments again recently and informed them that the federal government is prepared to share with them on a fifty-fifty basis the cost of completing their forest inventory. This assistance will apply for this fiscal year and succeeding years until the inventories are completed. It is expected that this can be done within five years.
Moreover, I informed the provincial governments that the federal government will contribute twenty-five per cent of the cost of reasonable programs of reforesting provincial crown lands, providing the amount expended each year by the provincial governments is not less than the average expenditure of the last three years.
Parliament will be requested to vote funds for this purpose in the supplementary estimates.
So that the details of the programs may be discussed, I have invited each provincial minister and/or his representative to come to Ottawa at an early date for a conference.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members will welcome the evidence offered by this statement by the minister of the measure of co-operation that is being established in the conservation of our forest resources. The protection of the forests is something which is particularly suitable for effective co-operation across provincial boundaries. As the minister has emphasized, fire is one of the great dangers. Actually there is greater wastage from fire than from cutting in a year when fires reach any substantial proportion.
In view of the fact that the dominion government is now undertaking to carry out such extensive plans for the supervision of the forests in co-operation with the provinces, I would again make a suggestion which I made on an earlier occasion. In the United States they are meeting with great success in tackling certain types of forest fires by dropping highly trained fire fighters by parachute from aeroplanes. These paratroopers-or, shall I say parafirefighters- have been successful in extinguishing many fires in remote hillside and mountain areas that otherwise could not have been stopped until they reached major proportions.
A large measure of success has been achieved also in fighting incipient fires in remote areas by the use of chemical bombs dropped from helicopters. At a time when air training is being extended as part of our general defence program, part of the training
[Mr. Winters.)
might be devoted to activities of this kind, for the purposes both of defence and of fire protection.
I make this suggestion again, in all earnestness, because a substantial amount of success has been achieved in other jurisdictions in fighting fires by these methods.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: May I
suggest to the minister that when these provincial representatives come to Ottawa he try to make arrangements with the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue for a discussion of some of the aspects of the problems that are connected with investment in growing timber. In Canada, as I am sure the minister appreciates, one of the great difficulties has been in inducing private capital to invest money in the planting of trees that will not be used for the next hundred years. Some consideration must be given by the Department of Finance to making it attractive to make such an investment, and I suggest that the minister have that subject on the agenda as well as the other matters. I understand he has a special committee set up which is studying the problem now.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, one is often called upon to criticize government policies from this side of the house, but I believe this is one occasion upon which one can commend the government for the statement just made by the minister. There is nothing more important than the conservation of our natural resources. The manner in which our forests have been denuded and wastefully used in the past is something for which future generations may suffer. This is a policy which should conserve the great forest resources of Canada. Some of the provincial governments are already worried about the manner in which our forest resources are being used up, and, speaking for myself and I am sure those who are with me, the government is to be commended for the policy which is foreshadowed by the minister's announcement to the house.



SALES TAX


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: wonder if I am in order, Mr. Speaker, and if I am not I know you will call my attention to it. On page 2599 of Hansard of May 1 the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) said:
You must be acquainted with Dr. Shute.
Perhaps the minister could tell us to whom he was referring, and at the same time, explain the reference.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: In order not to take up the time of the house now, I shall make a statement later.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Courlemanche:: What was the quantity of lumber and stone purchased in connection with the repairs to the wharf of St. Charles de Caplan, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, during the year 1950?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: (a) 29,761 f.b.m., and
6,945 linear feet of lumber; (b) 175J yards of stone.


MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. Stanfield:: 1.	How many (a) automobiles; (b) motor trucks, have been purchased by each department of government from vendors or dealers in Nova Scotia in each of the years 1949, 1950, inclusive, and in 1951 to date?
2.	What was (a) the date of purchase of each of such motor vehicles; (b) the kind and type; (c) the price paid for each; (d) the name of the dealer and vendor, and place of business?
3.	Were any purchases of motor vehicles made in Nova Scotia by any department of government for any employee or civil servant on terms requiring the latter to pay the same by instalment payments?
4.	If so, how many, and for whom were such purchases made?


Mr. Bradley:: The information requested
in this question was supplied in the return tabled on April 19 last. Under the circumstances I suggest that the question be dropped.


Mr. Stanfield:: I secured the information
from an answer to another question, and I ask that the question be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.


LOANS UNDER NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	How many loans have been approved for house construction in Canada since January 1, 1951, under the National Housing Act?
2.	How many were made in the same period last year?
Mr. 'Winters:
1.	5,764 loans for 7,649 housing units have been approved under the National Housing Act, 1944, during the period January 1, 1951 to March 31, 1951.
2.	5,871 loans for 7,493 housing units were approved under the National Housing Act, 1944, in the same period of 1950.
Questions


SAGUENAY RIVER
[Stage Direction]
Aftr. Gagnon:
1.	Who is in charge of placing and removing of buoys in the Saguenay river?
2.	What amount is paid for this work, and what is the term of the contract?
Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Mr. G. H. Lavoie.
2.	$2,100 per annum; three years from 2nd July, 1950.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has anyone been engaged to write a history or symposium on the D.V.A.?
2.	If so, who, and what staff is assisting in the task?


Mr. Mutch:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Walter S. Woods, Esq., C.M.G., LL.D., of Vancouver, B.C., formerly deputy minister of veterans affairs. Some stenographic assistance is provided by the staff of the district office of D.V.A. at Vancouver; nobody has been specially engaged for the purpose.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	How many employees of British, Jewish and French-Canadian origin are there in the department of immigration?
2.	What respective positions do they hold?
3.	How many immigrants, by nationality, entered the province of Quebec in 1950?
4.	Is there a special committee in Quebec to attend to French and Catholic immigrants?
5.	What functions are performed by the Ottawa and Quebec governments regarding immigrants?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1. Of immigration branch employees-
(a)	862 are native-born Canadians who gave their racial origin as English, Irish, Scotch or Welsh;
(b)	189 are Canadian citizens born outside Canada who gave their racial origin as English, Irish, Scotch or Welsh;
(c)	52 are not Canadian citizens, but were born in the commonwealth and gave their racial origin as English, Irish, Scotch or Welsh, of whom 46 are locally employed outside Canada;
(d)	282 are native-born Canadians who gave their racial origin as French;
(e)	One is a Canadian citizen born in the United Kingdom who gave his racial origin as French;
(f)	Five are Canadian citizens born outside Canada and the commonwealth who gave their racial origin as French;

Questions
(g)	Eleven are not Canadian citizens who gave their racial origin as French, and are locally employed outside Canada;
(h)	Six gave their racial origin as Jewish, of whom five are Canadian citizens-four native-born-employed in Canada. The sixth is employed locally, outside Canada.
2.
a	b	c	d	e	f	g	hAdministrative Officer, grade 1 ..	4	...	...	grade 2 ..	1	. . .	[DOT] . .	grade 3 ..	6	1	1	grade 5 ,.	1	. . .	2	grade 6 ..	1	1	grade 7 ..	. . .	1	Director of immigration 	1	Assistant commissioner 	1	Junior administrative assistant ..	2	. . .	Assistant superintendent European emigration 	1	Special immigration officer 	1	. . .	Chief, inspection and training division 	1	Superintendent of settlement ....	1	District superintendent of immigration 	2	1	Assistant district superintendent ..	5	. . .	District immigration inspector ....	3	2	1	Immigration investigating officer .	4	3	2	" shift supervisor ....	15	9	1	i	1Supervising immigration inspector, grade 1 	22	11	2	grade 2 	7	4	2	grade 3 	6	1	1	grade 4 	2	2	4	Superintendent of Canadian immigration, Hong Kong 	1	Immigration inspector, grade 1 ..	302	43	83	i	grade 2 	86	34	12	i	Chief supervisor, immigration branch 	1	Woman officer 	2	...	Secretary to executive 	1	1	...	Senior immigration inspector ....	4	2	3	...	Telephone operator 	1	. . .	1	...	Clerical 	176	26	21	78	i	5	1Stenographers 	108	12	25	29	i	...	3	Typists 	38	. . .	5	23	...	3	4Guards and deportation officers ..	31	25	12	i	Maintenance and kitchen 	28	8	1	23	...	862	189	52	282	i	5	11	6
1,408
[Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce) .1

3.	Immigration to the Province of Quebec, by Nationalities, for the Calendar Year 1950.
Albanian	 6
Austrian	 91
Belgian	 226
British	 1,842
Bulgarian	 8
Chinese	 136
.Czechoslovakian	 613
Danish	 72
Dutch	 491
Estonian	 455
Finnish	 30
French	 868
German	 191
Greek	 106
Hungarian	 573
Irish Republican	 58
Israelite	 52
Italian	 2,697
Latvian	 388
Lithuanian	 251
Mexican	 1
Norwegian	 17
Polish	 2,045
Portuguese	 5
Roumanian	 284
Russian	 155
South American	 29
Spanish	 11
Swedish	 38
Swiss	 157
Syrian	 36
Turkish	 3
Ukrainian	 12
U.S.A. citizens	 1,287
West Indian (not British)	 8
Yugoslavian	 302
Others	 31
Totals	13,575
4.	The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has no committee to serve any particular class of immigrant. It does, however, operate a settlement service in Quebec, and elsewhere, for the reception and assistance of all immigrants. There is a nondepartmental committee of the type referred to at Quebec.
5.	The Canadian government maintains complete facilities at many points abroad for the medical and civil examinations of prospective immigrants and for the granting of visas. Facilities are also maintained at ports of entry in Canada for the inspection of immigrants, and for the provision of food, shelter, and hospital care in emergency cases. Field staffs, in close co-operation with Canadian employers, arrange for the placement of immigrants in employment, and assist immigrants desirous of establishing themselves in their own enterprises.
Questions
Information as to the functions of the Quebec government in the matter of immigration might be obtained from that government.


MOVEMENT TO AND FROM FORT WILLIAM AND CHURCHILL
Mr. Ross (Souris):: 1.	How many bushels of wheat of the 1950 crop have been transported to (a) Fort William; (b) Churchill, as of April 1, 1951?
2.	How many bushels of this wheat are of the various grades?
3.	How many bushels of damp wheat of this crop have been dried at (a) Fort William; (b) Churchill?
4.	How many bushels of wheat of the 1950 crop have been exported from (a) Fort William; (b) Churchill?
5.	What is the estimate of quantity of wheat now in the country elevators for movement to either Fort William or Churchill?
6.	What auantity is held on farms for delivery?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Wheat receipts, August 1, 1950 to March 31, 1951, inclusive; (a) Fort William-Port Arthur, 99,583,961 bushels; (b) Churchill, 4,784,227 bushels.
2.	Wheat receipts by grades, August 1, 1950, to March 31, 1951, inclusive:
(a) Fort William-Port Arthur
Wheat (other than durum) Bushels 1 hard	 -
1	northern	
3,766,4142	northern	
13,596,0463	northern	
9,618,7224	northern	
10,683,117No. 4 special	
14,079No. 5	
11,323,039No. 6	
7,851,024Feed	
1,826,6921	C.W. garnet	
5,8062	C.W. garnet	
141,6433	C.W. garnet	
204,758Tough contract grades	
11,516,309Other tough and damp	
17,149,088Mixed wheat	
139,636Winter	
374,615All others	
775,882Total	
88,986,870
Durum wheat
1	C.W.	amber durum	
31,3502	C.W.	amber durum	
463,2233	C.W.	amber durum	
2,846,8164	C.W.	amber durum	
1,196,835Tough durum	
2,995,451Others	
3,063,416Total	
10,597,091
Grand total-all wheat .... 99,583,96)
2608	HOUSE OF
Questions
(b) Churchill
Wheat (other than durum) Bushels 1 hard	 -
1	northern	
968,1222	northern	
2,976,6143	northern	
528,2924	northern	
105,319No. 4 special	
-No. 5	
6,656No. 6	
1,496Feed	1	C.W. garnet	,	
-2	C.W. garnet	-3	C.W. garnet	
-Tough contract	grades	
165,218Other tough	and	damp	19,789Mixed wheat	
-Winter	
-All others	
12,721Total	
4,784,227
Durum wheat-nil.
3.	Number of bushels of tough and damp wheat dried from August 1, 1950 to March 31, 1951, inclusive: (a) Fort William-Port Arthur, 13,672,623 bushels; (b) Churchill, nil.
4.	All wheat shipments from August 1, 1950, to March 31, 1951, inclusive: (a) Fort William-Port Arthur, 78,243,958 bushels; (b) Churchill, 6,767,743 bushels.
5.	Estimated number of bushels of wheat in store country elevators for movement to Fort William-Port Arthur, Churchill and interior points, as at April 12, 1951: 74,260,730 bushels.
6.	Estimate of wheat on farms as at March 31, 1951, for delivery, farm use, or carryover on farms was:
(millions of bushels)
Manitoba	 17-0
Saskatchewan	 100-0
Alberta	 35-0
Total prairie provinces ..	152-0


FORT MCMURRAY BITUMINOUS SANDS- SULPHUR CONTENT
Mr. Dechene:: 1.	Has the federal government carried out any investigation with a view to ascertaining the sulphur content in the bituminous sands deposits in the Fort McMurray area?
2.	If so, with what result?
3.	Are any steps being taken by the federal government to develop this sulphur?
4.	Has the government of Alberta made any representations to the federal government with a view to promoting this valuable development?


Mr. Prudham:: 1. Yes.


2.	The bitumen in the bituminous sands has a sulphur content averaging about five per cent.
3.	Not directly, but current laboratory research work on refining of the bitumen indicates the possibility that by-product sulphur recovery might result from commercial development.
4.	No.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY QUESTION AS TO ACTION JOINTLY WITH UNITED STATES OR BY CANADA ALONE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. It is one which I had intended asking earlier this week, but a news item of this morning prompts me to think that perhaps this is an appropriate time to ask it. Will the Prime Minister indicate to the house, on the basis of the information the government has in its possession, what he thinks the chances are of some joint undertaking with respect to the St. Lawrence deep waterway? If that is not going to be possible, will he indicate whether the government has made up its mind to go ahead- on its own with this desirable project?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government is not in a position to make any accurate forecast at this time about the prospects of an early start internationally on the development of the St. Lawrence; but it has not yet given up hope that it may be an international undertaking and has therefore not yet determinedi any alternative policy.


FOOD SITUATION
[Stage Direction]
On the ordlers of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, based on a reported speech of Prime Minister Nehru of India dealing with the famine situation. In view of the urgency of the situation, and the reported willingness of China and- Russia to supply food to India, will the government of Canada consider making an immediate outright gift of food, or dollars with which to buy food, in order to assist in alleviating this situation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of his intention to ask this question, and thereby enabled me to check just a few moments ago with the Secretary of

State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), as I have been doing almost daily in respect of this problem. The government has been and is making use of every available means of securing accurate information about the food situation in India, but it is not yet in a position to make any announcement to the house.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development, and I am sorry that I was not able to give him sufficient notice of it. Is it true, as reported in the press, that the withdrawal of lending institutions from joint loans under the National Housing Act will make the act inoperative? If that is so, this would be a serious blow to low-income housing in Canada. Will measures be taken to enable the act to continue to be effective?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, under parts I and II of the National Housing Act, the Central Mortgage and1 Housing Corporation is enabled to enter into arrangements with approved lending institutions to make joint loans to assist in the construction of housing for home ownership or for rental. If lending institutions do not participate in these joint arrangements, the act will become inoperative in so far as parts I and II are concerned.
With respect to the second part of the question, I can only repeat what I have said previously, namely, that the whole matter of housing is under active consideration by the government and any decisions reached will be announced to the house in due course.


FRASERVIEW PROJECT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) asked me if I had received a communication from the Vancouver housing association urging consideration of the Fraserview veterans housing project. The answer is that I have received a communication and that it was answered on April 28. In dealing with a question of much the same nature previously, I gave a full answer on Monday, April 9. It can be found at page 1728 of Hansard.
Inquiries of the Ministry INTERPROVINCIAL BRIDGES


CAMPBELLTON, N.B.-CROSS POINT, QUE.   QUESTION AS TO FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. I sent him notice of it shortly before I came into the house; I am sorry I could not give him more notice. My question is based on a report published in the Telegraph-Journal of Saint John of May 1 with regard to the construction of an interprovincial bridge between Campbellton,, New Brunswick, and Cross Point, Quebec. The report states:
McNair contends Ottawa passing buck-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Probably the hon. member can ask his question without reading the report.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The premier of New Brunswick states that this is entirely a responsibility of the federal government, not a provincial responsibility. My question is this. Is premier McNair correct in saying that the construction of this bridge is entirely the responsibility of the federal government, and if so, has the federal government taken steps to begin the construction of this bridge?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of this question just before coming into the house, and I wish to thank the hon. gentleman. I have not read that report in the Telegraph-Journal of May 1. I hesitate to believe that the premier of New Brunswick would have used the language that is attributed to him in this article, because he is extremely distinguished in his way of explaining a situation.
In the second place, I must take the hon. gentleman's word that this was said, namely, that the federal government was fully responsible or entirely responsible for the construction of interprovincial bridges. I would not be positive or dogmatic about it. I have not consulted the Department of Justice. On the other hand I know from experience that in the past interprovincial bridges have been built with the co-operation of the provinces. Actually, there is under consideration a project on the Ottawa river at Pembroke. Negotiations are going on between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. We hope that some day we shall have this joint bridge put up by the people of the two provinces and the federal authority.
As to the Campbellton and Cross Point bridge, the federal government is well disposed. As to the responsibility, I should like to take more time to look into the matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might say that if I could have got the page boy to move a little more quickly, I would have had the copy of the newspaper over to the minister some time ago.


Alphonse Fournier: I will have plenty of time to read it.


FUEL OIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Owing to the fact that thousands of Canadians have installed or contemplate installing within the next few months oil stoves or furnaces, can the minister state whether he feels that fuel oil will be in sufficient supply this fall and in the winter of 1952 to take care of the old and new installations?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I know of no situation at this moment that would indicate a shortage of fuel oil for next winter. However, next winter is some months away, and circumstances could intervene. Accordingly, I should not like to have the above statement regarded as a commitment that there will be fuel oil. It has been the desire of the oil companies to instal a pipe line from Montreal to Ottawa and Toronto, and another pipe line from Sarnia to Toronto for the distribution of white products, as they are called; but that has not been possible on account of the shortage of steel. Whether distribution problems will interfere with the local supply situation next winter is uncertain. I expect that there will be sufficient fuel oil in the country, and I am hopeful that it will be properly distributed so that no one will suffer.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I did not send him notice of it because I know that he can always answer these questions without notice. In view of the fact that he has returned today from attendance at a conference between Canada and the United States with respect to civil defence matters, when will the house have the privilege of hearing his report as to the results of that conference and a statement of government policy on civil defence in Canada generally?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As my hon. friend likely knows, the estimate providing for civil defence is under the distribution of items in the name of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), the transfer of responsibility having taken place after the estimates were arrived at. When the Minister of National Defence brings his estimates to the house I may have an opportunity to say something on the matter.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Arising out of the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday on United States bases in Newfoundland, may I ask the Prime Minister when I may have an answer to some of the questions I asked, and will there be an opportunity for further discussion?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not undertake to answer all the questions the hon. member asked yesterday, but there will be ample opportunity to discuss the matters he has in mind.



WAYS AND MEANS

['Mr. Chairman, I think I have about three minutes left and I do not propose to waste those three minutes. I have been giving a lot of consideration to the minister\'s budget statement and I have also been giving a good deal of consideration to what my constituents are telling me. They say to me, "We are opposed to the commodity taxes that the minister has suggested he will impose as a result of his budget and we want you to oppose those taxes." I realize that some people would oppose anything, but I think the people in the country have good reason for opposing these taxes.\nExcise Tax Act\nSurely we have to be sensitive to the will of the people. I propose to be sensitive to their demands, especially if they have good cause or if there is something behind them. When the minister was explaining in his budget speech why he had decided to impose certain commodity taxes he said that he wanted to establish as nearly as possible a balance as between income tax, on the one hand, and commodity taxes on the other. He said that was one reason why he had decided to get something like $100 million out of the sales tax, and probably from $15 million to $25 million out of the special excise taxes and so on.\nAt various times since the budget was brought down either the minister or his parliamentary assistant has said that if we had other ideas about where he might get the revenue we ought to bring them forward. In the short time that I have I propose to place before the minister at least one alternative to which he could have turned to get the revenue he will require this year, and perhaps one or two others.\nProgress reported.']
Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of ways and means.



Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour leaves the chair on this motion to go into committee of ways and means there is a matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the government. It is a situation which has been brought to their attention outside of this house a number of times, but I refer in particular to the occasion on which the Canadian Congress of Labour waited on the government, on April 11, and submitted their memorandum on matters of concern to organized labour. Included in the brief they presented was a section dealing with the manner in which the railway strike of last fall was settled. More particularly, the point raised by the delegation representing the Canadian Congress of Labour related to the failure of the arbitrator to give to the hotel and water transport workers the same terms that were accorded to the railway employees involved in last fall's dispute.
May I read two or three sentences from the representations made to the government just a short while ago-as I have already said, on

April 11-by the Canadian Congress of Labour. Discussing this matter the congress brief says:
The impression given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons debate on the railway strike was that all employees would be treated on an equal basis. No other impression could be taken from the remarks made by the Prime Minister with respect to this vital issue, and it was accepted in good faith by the employees.
Later, after referring to the difference in the award as between railway employees on the one hand and hotel and water transport workers on the other, the congress in its brief went on to say:
In spite of the fact that the government appears to take the position that nothing further can be done in this matter, the railway employees feel that the legislation passed by parliament did not give them the protection which they were led to believe it provided. There has been a distinct loss of morale in the railway service, and the congress urges in the strongest possible manner that the government take whatever action may be necessary to remedy what the railway employees believe was a discriminatory decision on the part of the arbitrator.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it so happens that there is nothing in the legislative program before parliament at this session that relates to this matter. There are no items in the estimates that deal with it, and this is in fact one of the very first opportunities that I have had to raise this question in such a manner as to get from the government the consideration that I believe it deserves. I wish to point out that I raise the question because I believe the good name of this parliament is at stake.
Last fall when we met here in a special session to deal with two main matters, one of them being the railway dispute, we had presented to us a bill known as the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act. That bill had a preamble which, amongst other things, said:
Whereas the operation of railways and subsidiary services serving the country as a whole has been suspended by reason of a failure of the railway companies and the bargaining agents of nonoperating and certain other employees of the companies to reach agreement as to certain terms and conditions of employment . . .
Then later on these words:
And1 whereas the railway companies and the bargaining agents of the employees appear to have agreed that existing wage rates should be increased, and the forty-hour week introduced but appear to have been unable to agree as to the amount and effective date of the wage increase or the date at which the forty-hour week would be effective and the terms and conditions upon which it would be introduced . . .
The preamble continues, and eventually as one reads he gets down to the operative sections of the act. The reason I read these two paragraphs from the preamble was to
Hotel and Water Transport Workers point out that they referred collectively to the whole group of employees who were out on strike. Not only did these two paragraphs refer collectively to all the employees who were out on strike, but they referred to them as being employees of the railway companies and of their subsidiary services. In other words, some of us in this house, and certainly the employees, thought that that bill, on the basis of its preamble, was designed to treat all employees who were involved in that dispute on precisely the same basis, whether they were railway employees or employees of subsidiary services.
When we got to discussion of the clauses of the bill we reached a clause which I felt had a bearing on this matter, and as a matter of fact I had my doubts as to whether the operative provisions of the bill were clearly enough drawn to make sure that the hotel and water transport workers would get as of right the same treatment that was to be accorded to the railway employees. I asked questions along that line, as recorded at pages 71 and 72 of Hansard of August 30, 1950. At this point may I say in fairness to the Prime Minister that he gave an answer which seemed to me to indicate that I was right, namely, that the bill did not give a guarantee that all employees would be treated in the same way. Well, there was not much satisfaction in being right on the point, because I wanted the bill to be worded so as to guarantee that hotel and water transport workers would be treated in the same manner as the railway employees. So I pressed for the section to be properly drawn, and other members, particularly from this group, supported me in that effort. I find that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) pursued the matter, and eventually got a statement from the Prime Minister which -certainly was different in tone from the one he had given me, and which seemed to be more satisfactory to the members of this house; indeed it seemed satisfactory to the railway employees affected.
At page 74 of Hansard the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar set the stage for what the Prime Minister had to say in answer to him. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said:
There is a certain amount of loyalty among these union- members who have been working together through their groups. They would have felt, I am sure, that to accept for themselves an agreement which separated in any way the smaller group of workers would have been disloyalty to that group. The government would be well advised to consider this small group of people as coming under any of the decisions that are beneficial to the larger unions.
I have heard it said that the railway management considered throughout that after all this was a minor matter. In fact on one occasion I heard it described as peanuts. If for the sake of a small

Hotel and Water Transport Workers part of the negotiating unions we fail to do what is justice to them, and give the larger unions the feeling that this group which has relied on them has been discriminated against, I think it will tend to create bad public relations and bad union relations in the future.
I wish now to quote what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said immediately after these observations of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The Prime Minister is reported on page 75 of Hansard for August 30, 1950, in these words:
They are not being discriminated against in any way. The government, in the bill which is recommended to parliament, has treated them in the same way as the other unions, namely, as one unit; and everything that binds the arbitrator with respect to any one binds him as much with respect to those two small groups as it does to the others.
This is a long paragraph, so I do not need to read it all. But I draw your attention to another statement by the Prime Minister which he made later, immediately after an interjection of mine. These are his words:
I would not like to discuss these details, but in the recommendation we made to parliament and in the bill itself we have attempted to treat as one unit all those involved in this dispute.
Later on he says:
We have endeavoured to treat the whole group who are out, those who have withdrawn from work, as one unit; and our reason for doing so is that we thought it would be unfortunate to ask by legislation that any portion of them should do something which they would regard as disloyal to their comrades.
As was pointed out in the brief presented by the Canadian Congress of Labour on April 11, those words of the Prime Minister were taken in good faith by the employees. They thought that made clear the meaning and the intention of the bill. They thought that the Prime Minister's words were in keeping with the terms of the preamble, particularly the two paragraphs I quoted a while ago. They thought that all the employees on strike, both the railway workers and the hotel and water transport workers, would be treated as one unit; they thought that whatever award was made by the arbitrator under the act would apply equally to the railway employees and to the hotel and water transport workers.
In due course an arbitrator, in the person of Mr. Justice Kellock of the Supreme Court of Canada, was appointed. I must say that on other occasions I have quoted from that report in laudatory terms. In particular I feel Mr. Justice Kellock is to be commended for the way in which he treated the railway employees, giving them the highest increase the act permitted, and giving them, as he did, the forty-hour week at the earliest date the act permitted. His reasons for those two


decisions are clearly stated in his award, and I need not take time to go into that matter now.
But with respect to the question as to what to do with the hotel and water transport workers, Mr. Justice Kellock took a different view from the one indicated in the words of the Prime Minister, as I have just quoted. At page 8 of the mimeographed copy of Mr. Justice Kellock's award I find these words- and he is speaking at this point about the position of the hotel and water transport workers:
On behalf of the union it is contended that the effect of the statute has been to equate the hotel and water transport employees with the other employees here in question, so that if there is to be an adjustment in, wages or hours1 as to the latter group, the same must apply to all. In support of this contention reference is made to certain expressions in the preamble of the statute-
-which I have just read.
Then Mr. Justice Kellock says:
I was also referred to the discussion in parliament when the bill was under consideration.
I have just referred to that same discussion, which was brought to the attention of Mr. Justice Kellock by the representatives of the employees. Then he goes on to say:
In my opinion the language in subsection 3 of section 5-
He is referring to the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act.
-is clear and mandatory. The arbitrator is to decide any particular matter "within the limits of the proposals that he determines were made by the railway companies and the unions in respect of that matter" at the time pointed out by the statute. Accordingly, even if there can be said to be any ambiguity in the preamble, which I do not suggest, the operative provisions must govern1.
Well, I am not a lawyer, and sometimes I join in the cracks made about lawyers; but I must confess I think Mr. Justice Kellock is following good legal practice in that interpretation of the statute. We all know it to be perfectly true, that it is the operative provisions of a statute which must govern. In my view therefore the thing that is unfortunate about this is that the operative provisions of the statute failed to reflect the intention of parliament, as indicated by the words of the Prime Minister which I read, and which we in the house were asked to accept as interpreting the intention of the bill, and which the employees accepted in good faith.
The result of this whole situation, namely, a statute the operative provisions of which in the opinion of Mr. Justice Kellock do not carry out the clearly stated intentions of the Prime Minister-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: He does not say that at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am saying it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: You say that in the opinion of Mr. Justice Kellock the operative clause does not conform with the preamble. He did not say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, but I think the Prime Minister misunderstands me. I am not putting words into the mouth of Mr. Justice Kellock, other than the words I quoted from him. Anything else I am saying is my own.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Justice Knowles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What I am saying is this, that the result of a statute which failed to include in its operative sections what we were told was the clearly stated intention of parliament is that Mr. Justice Kellock made an award that was different with respect to the railway employees from what it was with respect to the hotel and water transport workers. It was not his fault, but it was contrary to what parliament expected.
In brief I would point out that the railway employees were awarded an increase of seven cents an hour, whereas the hotel and water transport workers were awarded an increase of four cents an hour, that being the floor provided by the statute. The railway employees were awarded a forty-hour week at the earliest date provided in the statute, namely, June 1, 1951, without any loss of take-home pay, but there was no provision for a forty-hour week for the hotel and water transport employees. Indeed, no change in their working week was made under the provisions of Mr. Justice Kellock's award. Hotel and water transport workers work varying numbers of hours in various parts of the country. It may be forty-four or forty-eight hours or more. Whatever hours they worked before still obtain. Another difference between the two groups is that the hotel and water transport workers were given a one-year contract, while the railway employees were given a two-year contract. The only point of significance about that difference, as I see it, is that these groups are being separated; because the hotel and water transport employees will have to seek a new agreement at a time when the railway employees will not have to do so. The smaller group will be splintered off from the larger group, and will therefore have less bargaining power.
In that connection may I point out that Mr. Justice Kellock states that there were 148,433 railway employees involved in the dispute, but that there were only 9,263 hotel and water transport workers involved. In
2. 1951
Hotel and Water Transport Workers other words it is for that small group of slightly more than 9,000 employees that I am speaking on this occasion.
When parliament met this year one of the first questions that I put to the Prime Minister was in relation to this matter. My question will be found in Hansard of February 1, 1951, at page 17. I need not quote the question, but it related to the matter of whether or not the government intended to do anything to get that award adjusted. The Prime Minister replied to the effect that representatives of the railroad unions had waited on him prior to that date with regard to this matter and that his answer to them was that the provisions of the statute had been carried out and it was not then the intention of the government to ask parliament to change that matter.
As is clear from letters that have been addressed since that time to the Prime Minister and letters that the rest of us have received, and as is clear from the representations made by the Canadian Congress of Labour on April 11, this is a matter which still exercises those who are affected by it. My purpose in rising at this time is to ask the government, on the floor of this house, to reconsider this whole position. I feel that it is our duty as members of parliament to concern ourselves, particularly when smaller groups are affected.
It is all well and good to say that the award was a fair award so far as the 148,000 railway workers were concerned. I have gone into that on other occasions, and I shall not now repeat my argument that the statute should not have limited the increase to seven cents per hour. But here we are confronted with this smaller group of 9,263 who feel they have been discriminated against. What rankles with them most of all is the feeling that parliament-indeed the government-let them down. They relied on the letter and the spirit of the words of the Prime Minister on August 30 to the effect that the whole group of employees, that all who were out, that all who were involved in the strike were to be treated as one unit. The phrase "one unit" was used by the Prime Minister at least twice. Whatever he may have meant by it, certainly the workers thought that it meant that the same treatment would be accorded to all.
I could go into the merits of the case on the basis of the wages these hotel and water transport workers are receiving and the hours that they work, but I am refraining from doing that on this occasion. I think that whatever may be their due because of their

Hotel and Water Transport Workers low wages and long hours, because of comparisons with people in other occupations, the main point so far as we are concerned is the good name of parliament.
May I remind you and the house that there have been other occasions on which the government felt that the intention of parliament had not been carried out fully. I have before me references dealing with two such cases. In both of those cases the government either has taken action already or has announced that it will take action to see to it that the intentions of parliament are carried out.
One case came up in this house on February 26 of this year. We were having a debate on a matter which has taken a more favourable turn since then, namely, the question of trade union dues in relation to income tax. I was complaining about the action of the government several years ago in setting aside the provisions of the statute. I refer now to what happened in 1945, 1946 and 1947. I pointed out that just as soon as the Exchequer Court of Canada ruled that the right to deduct trade union dues from income tax was really included in the statute in 1945, 1946 and 1947, in fact just as soon as the matter was referred to the court, the government brought in a bill to amend the act and take away that privilege.
When I was complaining about this the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) argued that I should commend the government for taking action to change the law so as to make it conform with what had been the intention of parliament. The parliamentary assistant was definite about it. The debate took place on February 26 and may be found at page 677 of Hansard. His point was that if the act was as I said it was and as the Exchequer Court said it was, that was not the intention of the government when it presented its original legislation to parliament. As soon as the government discovered that it had made what it regarded as a mistake in the legislation, it amended the legislation so as to carry out its intention, and the parliamentary assistant said to me on that occasion that that was something for which I should commend the government instead of criticizing it.
The other example was brought to our attention in the first instance on February 16 of this year, as reported at page 421 of Hansard, by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) who got up on the orders of the day to tell us that the government was going to take to the privy council, if you please, the famous Nolan case, in an endeavour to get a change in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Minister of Justice announced on that
[Mr. Knowles.)
occasion that if the decision of the privy council was likewise against the government, he was giving notiee that the government would bring in legislation to amend the statute so as to carry out what had been the intention of the government and the intention of parliament. I think I should read a few of his words. The minister said that the government:
-gives notice that it will, in order to carry out the principle of preventing such fortuitous profits, introduce legislation in parliament confirming the settlements with all of the commercial traders in oats and1 barley, other than Mr. Nolan . . .
This matter came up again later on in the session. As a matter of fact it was raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in such a manner that the Prime Minister felt that he had to reply to it, and he did so as recorded on page 827 of Hansard. Speaking of what the courts had done in connection with the interpretation of the legislation, he said:
They may be right but if they are right the government made a mistake in the method adopted to carry out the intention of parliament. It did not make any mistake as to what was the intention of parliament. It made a mistake, if that is correct, as to the method it adopted to carry out the intention of parliament.
A little later he described the arrangements the Minister of Justice was making. He said that if the privy council ruled against the government the government would be saying: We did not make any mistake as to what parliament wanted done, and we ask you to confirm the settlements that were made with those who did not institute proceedings. There is a clear case where in the words of the Minister of Justice and of the Prime Minister we are told that the intention of the government and of parliament was clear. The courts having placed a different interpretation on the statute than was the intention of the government and of parliament, the government feels itself obligated to bring in the necessary legislation to change the statute so as to carry out what was the intention.
There is my case. Surely what is fair to do in one instance is fair to do in another. The Prime Minister told us on August 30 of last year that it was the intention of the government to treat all the employees involved in the dispute as one unit. He used that phrase at least twice, and its spirit runs through all his remarks. There was to be no discrimination. There was to be nothing done to make any group feel that they were disloyal to any of their fellow workers. It was so clear that the representatives of the employees who were sitting in the gallery on that occasion felt satisfied, even though they might have had some doubts about the wording of the bill. They were satisfied that if the

matter went to arbitration the intention of the government and of parliament would be carried out.
The matter did not go to the courts, but it did come into the hands of a justice of the supreme court. That justice of the supreme court did not interpret the operative provisions of the statute in the way the Prime Minister had indicated to us on August 30, 1950.
It seems to me the course to be followed by the government on behalf of parliament is clear. If when the Nolan case reached the point it did the government felt that its intention had not been carried out and it therefore has the right to bring in legislation to carry out that intention, surely the hotel and water transport workers have a moral claim upon this government to have the same course taken on their behalf. As I say, I have refrained from going into the rate of wages and hours of work; I do not want to complicate the question. If I did go into those matters, from my point of view their case would be even stronger. Here is a small group, and we often find that small groups are discriminated against. But I object to such treatment, and on behalf of these 9,263 hotel and water transport workers I submit that something should now be done to alleviate their situation. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones):
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out, and the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the government should give consideration to the advisability of taking appropriate steps to secure an alteration in the award which was made under the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act of 1950, so as to extend to the hotel and water transport workers involved1 in the railway dispute of last fall the same terms awarded to the railway employees involved in the same dispute."


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to defend the award made by Mr. Justice Kellock, nor to defend that hon. gentleman himself; I do not think he requires any defence in this house. I regret that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) does not agree with Mr. Justice Kellock's interpretation of the statute and its preamble, and does not agree with the conclusions at which the hon. justice arrived. But it so happens that it was Mr. Justice Kellock who was selected to preside over this arbitration, and that it is the decision of Mr. Justice Kellock which by statute is binding upon the parties.
I rise merely for the purpose of pointing out to my hon. friend that he can take some 80709-167
Hotel and Water Transport Workers phrases from the language I used at that time and interpret them as he has chosen to do this afternoon, but if he reads the whole of what I said-and I said quite a lot on that occasion, as many of us did, because we were very much disturbed over the serious situation which had arisen-he will find that I said the government had come to the conclusion very reluctantly that it should not ask the other unions to abandon any of their fellows with whom they had bound themselves together for a common cause, because it would probably have seemed to them we were asking them to do something disloyal. So I said the government did not recommend1 that parliament do that, but that the matters in dispute would remain to be determined by the arbitrator. I even pointed out in express terms that if the arbitrator came to the conclusion that a certain group should get a larger increase than another group, that would be something he could include in his award. He was the one to determine what remained in dispute between the employers and the employees, and he was the one to determine how the dispute should end.
At page 13 of Hansard I commenced by pointing out that we found it difficult to ask parliament to declare that it was in the national interest that the services of the Chateau Laurier here in Ottawa should be resumed at once. We found it difficult to come to that conclusion and to ask parliament to come to that conclusion, but we felt there was the overriding consideration that if we did not do it we would be saying to the men that they had to do something which they might consider disloyal to the smaller group included1 in their number. When the question was raised by the hon. member I gave him the answer to which he has referred, which is at page 71 of Hansard; that we were saying that though the railways in their discussions had not agreed to four cents for everybody, there would be four cents for everybody, but that was all we were determining; and that as far as we were concerned', if there was a continuance of this dispute between the parties in regard to treating water and hotel operatives in a different fashion from the ordinary railway operatives, the arbitrator would have before him the example of what the government was recommending to parliament, and what parliament was doing, but that it would be his responsibility to make the decision.
Now the decision has been made, and I must repeat that it is not the intention of the government to ask parliament to set aside the decision. I would ask the hon. gentleman to read again everything I said on that
U'	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Hotel and Water Transport Workers occasion. I am sure he will come to the conclusion, which is apparent from what I said, that here was the example the government was giving, here was the example parliament was giving, but that was not to be binding upon the arbitrator with respect to any of the matters that might be in dis>-pute; that he would have to settle them, and he did.
The union leaders felt they could not take any other position than to ask for equality Of treatment fox the hotel and water operatives. I felt that parliament could not take any other position than to determine what it was determining with respect to those who were involved; but that what was left to be determined under the act would be determined by the arbitrator. The arbitrator came to. the conclusion

and I am not going to discuss whether or not it was a proper conclusion-that those who happened to be working in railway hotels had no good-reason to expect substantially better treatment than operatives in other hotels. When the labour leaders made their representations to the government some time ago, we told them the contract with the hotel operatives would expire shortly and would have [DOT]to be renewed, and they could make their representations to the management. They said it would make for better public relations between the railways and all their employees if they treated- their hotel employees on the same footing. I said, "Well, make that representation to the railway management. I am not. going to take the responsibility of asking parliament to intervene and set aside the decision made in this exceptional case." This was regarded and treated as a case of compulsory arbitration. It was .very exceptional, and- I hope it will long remain so. I hope there may never again be any situation in which parliament will have to exercise its authority to secure the functioning of essential services in this country.
It may be urged upon the railway management that it would make for better personal relations with their employees if they did that, but I do not think it is a matter in which any responsible government could ask parliament to intervene again to change the award that was made at that time. I repeat that I made it abundantly clear that the questions remaining in dispute could be dealt with by the arbitrator. I said, as recorded at page 75 of Hansard for August 30, 1950:
... I would- not like to give any opinion as a lawyer as to whether or not in the position taken by the parties at the last moment there would still be rooni for the arbitrator to say that one group, perhaps the ear men, would get one rate, arid another group, perhaps the boilermakers, would get another.

I do not know. We have endeavoured to treat the whole group who are out, those who have withdrawn from work, as one unit; and our reason for doing so is that we thought it would be unfortunate to ask by legislation that any portion of them should do something which they would regard as disloyal to their comrades.
Then the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said:
Then we can take it that the intention of the legislation is so far as possible to keep the unions as a unit in their negotiations?
I answered:
I would not put it in that way. The intention was not by legislation to require any of the unions to adopt a course that they would regard as disloyal to their fellows.
That was the position in parliament, that we should not by legislation do something which would have been very embarrassing to the constitution of this country had they refused to comply with it. That was one of the very serious motives which induced us to do this rather illogical thing of including the operations of the Chateau Laurier as something that was essential to the functioning of the Canadian economy. The matters remaining in dispute were left for the arbitrator. I may say I thought that, with our example before him, he might decide to treat them all on the same footing, but it was a matter that had to be determined by him. I believe it would be wrong for the government to ask parliament to vary the decision at which he arrived.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: It
is not my intention to speak at any length on this question. The member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has made his case so clear, as he always does, there is nothing much left for anyone else to say. After hearing what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has had to say there is still less left for me to say, because I believe in his concluding words he has upheld the contention of the member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Let me point out that, so far as my understanding goes, the member for Winnipeg North Centre did not say that Mr. Justice Kelleck misinterpreted the act. What he did say was that the act did not express what parliament intended, that is that all of the groups on strike should be treated alike. The Prime Minister read the part of the debate that I was going to quote, that is part of his own statement which appears at page 75 of Hansard. But let me read it again, for emphasis, and I shall leave my participation in this debate at that. This is what the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 75 of Hansard for August 30, 1950:
For instance, I would not like to give-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps you should start four or five lines above that.


Angus MacInnis: I would be glad to do that.
On all of the points in which we have provided expressly, we have stated the arbitrator cannot undo what we are doing. On the other matters he will have to make a determination as to the extent of the gap and the bridging of the gap.
It is clear that the arbitrator felt there was a gap, and he used the discretion given him in the act.
Then the Prime Minister proceeded:
For instance, I would not like to give any opinion as a lawyer as to whether or not in the position taken by the parties at the last moment there would still be room for the arbitrator to say that one group, perhaps the car men, would get one rate, and another group, perhaps the boilermakers would get another. I do not know. We have endeavoured to treat the whole group who are out, those who have withdrawn from work, as one unit;
I think that is clear. So far as parliament was concerned, the purpose was to treat all the employees, both hotel employees and water transport workers on the same basis as those other railway employees who participated in the strike.
Then the Prime Minister continues:
. . . and our reason for doing so is that we thought it would be unfortunate to ask by legislation that any portion of them should do something which they would) regard as disloyal to their comrades.
My understanding of the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I agree with it completely, is that if the act did not express specifically what parliament intended, parliament should now remedy that situation and do justice to these employees that we feel were discriminated against in the arbitrator's findings.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: I should like to
briefly outline a little problem we have in the interior of British Columbia, and this has a distinct bearing on it. I feel I would be remiss in my duties as a member of that area if I did not bring it before the house. On Okanagan lake we have barges, tugs and other equipment operated by both the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National. The men operating this equipment are well organized, and are part of the transportation system, so were affected by the strike. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, today they feel that they have been let down by parliament. They were led to believe, rightly or wrongly and I am not going to go into that, that an implicit promise had been made that they were to be treated fairly with all other railroad workers. They took that from the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and from the preamble to the act.
80709-167*
Hotel and Water Transport Workers They still feel that way today, and believe they have been badly let down.
The men employed on these barges and tugs are of a very high calibre, the masters, general officers and the men themselves. Many of them are former naval men or deep-sea seamen who have turned to lake service in their advancing years. They feel that they are supplying a vital service in the transportation system, because except for this water transportation the railway would end at Kelowna. They feel, therefore, that they are a vital part of the system, and the same situation would apply to Kootenay lake and the other lakes in the interior of British Columbia. It is felt also that no sound reason has been advanced for excluding them from the general recognition of the railroad workers, which naturally produces a divorcing of their group from the general category of railroad workers.
I wish to place on record the reasons they advanced for placing themselves in the same category as ordinary railroad workers. They are very simple. They are as follows:
(1)	The earnings from our efforts go into the railroad coffers.
(2)	Our pay cheques are issued by the railroad companies.
(3)	Our work is governed by rules and regulations issued by the railroad companies.
(4)	Should we incur any expense through breakage or waste we have to explain very thoroughly to some office of the railroad company.
(5)	From the standpoint of peculiarities of duties our deck crews have to switch and spot freight cars just as do railroad brakemen and conductors. This is additional to the regular ship's duties.
(6)	Touching on the hotel employees issue we leave it to you to take notice of your railroad timetable and newspaper advertising wherein no punches are pulled in telling you that hotels owned and operated by the railroad companies offer the finest of service andi accommodation to the traveller.
(7)	Last but not least-when our agreement expires it has to be renegotiated at the office of the divisional superintendent, these recommendations of which are subject to final ratification by the general head office of the railroad company.
That seems to me to place on record the close touch there is between the water transport workers and the general set-up of the railway transportation system in Canada. They feel that they have the same grievance that the other railway workers have. They went on strike for the same reasons, at the same time, for the same principle, namely, the high east of living and their inability to meet it. They feel that they should not be segregated from the bodies rendering public service under identical conditions, identical management, subject to identical punishment, merit marks and so on. Of course they have to do something about it. They have a feeling that they may again have to consider strike action. I am not saying that

Hotel and Water Transport Workers is a general feeling, but they have got to do something to raise their present standards.
May I point out that another thing that seems to me to tie them in with other railroad workers is that before any organized body of workers who contemplate strike action may take such action they must receive the sanction of the government through the Department of Labour. The water transport workers and hotel employees were granted such permission to take part in the railroad strike. To my mind this is a tentative admission by the Department of Labour that both groups were subject to the same governing factors and should be dealt with collectively. Parliament unconsciously acknowledged the unity of the workers by calling the bill not the railroad workers bill or the waterworkers bill, but the maintenance of railway operation bill. I submit that the railway could not be maintained without these vital links in its operation. To my mind the act was intended to cover them.
These men, unfortunately, are still working a 48-hour week and they are still under the 1939 agreement. The company is quite satisfied because that suits them, and they refuse to allow any changes to be made in those working conditions. These men have had no raise in pay since 1948, and we all know how greatly the cost of living has gone up in the meantime. It is on their behalf that I would ask that consideration be given to granting to these men, by negotiation if necessary, the same terms, the same increases in salary and the same lowering of the weekly working hours. I ask that their case be subject to immediate negotiation. I believe that they are as much entitled to a home life that the longer hours there would give them as are their colleagues with whom they work every day. I think that it is unfair, and constitutes an injustice, when one group of a given service is segregated and told, "You shall have nothing" while the others are treated well according to the settlement made.
I feel that the government have a responsibility. Whether what has happened was intentional or unintentional is a matter which I am not going to go into at all. But at any rate, the impression was given that these men would be treated on a basis similar to that which was used in the treatment of all other railroad workers who were on strike. To bring back the good name of parliament, and I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) feels that something should be done on behalf of these men, I appeal to him to use either negotiation or some other instrument-and I do not know what is available- whereby a hearing could be given these men


and their case could be dealt with on its merits, in order to give them a decent chance to raise their standard of living to meet the present high cost.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has made an excellent case. I do not intend to add to it; that is to say, I do not intend to add to it anything in the form of argument. I should merely like to add my endorsation of the words that he has spoken. I am one of those citizens who are fortunate enough to have in their midst a Canadian National Railway hotel, the Bessborough, which I have no doubt has played host to a good many members of this house, including the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I have heard no good reason advanced today as to why there should have been a discrimination and a division as between these two classes of workers or why that other class of workers which was discriminated against should not share the benefits of the award under the recent decision. The employees of the hotels, of course, were disappointed also. There is one fine gentleman who lives close to my house, who was engaged in some humble work, as it is termed, at that place; he came to me when I was at home at Easter and expressed bitter disappointment, not perhaps so much in the matter of the money award as in the fact that some distinction had been made as between the particular class of workers of which he was one and those other classes of workers who had received better treatment. This was something he bitterly resented. I am prepared to accept the interpretation which the Prime Minister has made of his own words, but may I say that the only reason I accept it is that he has so interpreted them. If I am paying the Prime Minister what I think is a well-deserved compliment in that regard, I may remind him that a great many people of this country and those workers of whom we are at the moment speaking, accept the Prime Minister's word in that same spirit. It is therefore unfortunate that they should give to the Prime Minister's word an interpretation which he had not intended; because when he speaks, the people listen and believe. These people listened and they believed; and there are no tricks in plain and simple faith. The Prime Minister said that he is not prepared to recommend to parliament that it should remedy this injustice to these particular workers; he did not call it an injustice, but that is what I call it. Although the Prime Minister is not prepared to submit the matter to this parliament may I say that this matter, like most others, is within the jurisdiction of this parliament and that this

parliament could do something about it if the government were to give to it the necessary leadership.
I shall close these few remarks with the fine words that were spoken by our former colleague in this house, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), when he said that, among the things that he had found out, the one which stood out most vividly from his experience in the years he had spent here was this, and he expressed it in the following words:
I came to a very simple conclusion, a conclusion that I know to be right, namely, that perhaps the chief thing that rests upon us here is that within these four walls and in our hands rest the honour and conscience of the Dominion of Canada.
Let me say that this is one of the things which rest upon the honour and conscience of this house.


Major James William Coldwell: really did not intend to say a word, and I have been considering whether I should say it or not; but I think perhaps I owe it to my colleagues in the house as well as to myself to say what I am going to say. I have a vivid recollection of this discussion on August 30. In common with all other members of the house, I was anxious to see the matter settled then and the railways resume their operation immediately. I followed very carefully the course of the debate. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has quoted the question that I put to him as recorded at page 75 of Hansard. That question was put immediately after the paragraph that has been quoted two or three times this afternoon. I will, if the Prime Minister will allow, not quote the first paragraph of the two, because it does not have any bearing on what I am going to say, but I listened very carefully to this:
For instance. I would not like to give any opinion as a lawyer as to whether or not in the position taken by the parties at the last moment there would still be room for the arbitrator to say that one group, perhaps the car men, would get one rate, and another group, perhaps the boilermakers, would get another. I do not know. We have endeavoured to treat the whole group who are out, those who have withdrawn, from work, as one unit; and1 our reason for doing so is that we thought it would be unfortunate to ask by legislation that any portion of them should' do something which they would regard as disloyal to their comrades.
In the sitting that afternoon I considered that to mean, rightly or wrongly, and apparently wrongly now, that we were not going to ask by legislation the segregation of the large group of railway workers from the small group of water and hotel workers. That was my interpretation at the time, and I asked the question to confirm it. When the question was answered I thought that it confirmed the opinion that I had formed during
Hotel and Water Transport Workers the discussion, namely, that the intention was not by legislation to require any of the unions to adopt a course which could be regarded as disloyal to their fellows.
I may say that immediately I turned to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and said: "I think that is very satisfactory. I do not think we should delay this matter any longer. I suggest that we co-operate to end this discussion and get the railways working." My impression at that time was as I have suggested, and I thought that I owed it to my colleagues, to the Prime Minister and to the house, to say that that was my interpretation. It was on that basis that I so suggested to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who at that time was doubtful, and was not satisfied; but we had a long discussion, and I thought that the statement of the Prime Minister, my question and his reply clarified the situation sufficiently that it was clear that we were going to treat all the employees as a unit in the proposed arbitration, and that no group would be separated from the others. It was upon that basis that I said to my friends who have spoken this afternoon: "I think that that is good. I think that that settles the matter, and we should try to get the railways in operation and not delay this bill any longer." I thought perhaps I should say that. I am sure, as a matter of fact, the representatives of the railway men in the gallery thought the same because I saw them immediately after I left the chamber and they said so.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I will not be two minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Thank you. I enter this debate for two very good reasons. One is, the only hotel in Newfoundland owned by the Canadian National Railways is in my riding; the other is, the water transport workers coming within the purview of this amendment I have been associated with professionally for many years, and through an accident was the head of their union for a matter of two or three years.
I do not intend to enter into any legal discussion with the Prime Minister on this matter, Mr. Speaker; it would be an unfair, competition so far as I am concerned. But I should like to say that it was my understanding when we left here" after the special session that the hotel and water transport employees were to be treated on the same basis exactly as other members of the union. I went home with that understanding, and I told the water transport union men that that was so.

Hotel and Water Transport Workers
In that connection, as I say, I am certainly not going to enter into any discussion with the Prime Minister, but at page 75 of Hansard he used these words:
I would not like to discuss those details; but in the recommendation we made to parliament, and in the bill itself we have attempted to treat as one unit, all those involved in this dispute.
I was quite happy, but I did put the question to the Prime Minister as recorded at page 76 of Hansard:
There Is one thing I should like to get a little more clear in my own mind. The Prime Minister defined the position of the water transport workers and I wonder if once again he would make their position clear at least beyond the doubt in my own mind. Are they going to be included with the other railroad workers?
The Prime Minister replied: "They are." Well, as I say, rightly or wrongly-and I am sure the Prime Minister did not mean to mislead me in any way; I do not make that suggestion-that was the opinion that I went home with, and that was the opinion I expressed when I got home. I believe that is the opinion that hon. members who have spoken this afternoon had when they returned from parliament at that time.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: There happen to be a number of water transport workers in my constituency who are employed on the inland Canadian Pacific Railway steamers; and it is because I think they have a just cause for grievance that I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am not going to repeat the arguments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; I think he made an excellent case, and there is no need for repetition at this time. But like the hon. member who has just spoken, when I returned home I was under the impression that all groups were going to be treated as a group as a result of the debate in the House of Commons, and I so expressed my opinion to these men. I met their business agent, and I met the crews on the steamers concerned, and they felt at that time that they were going to be treated in that way. The judgment has proven that those 10,000 workers, water transport and hotel workers, have not been included in the group. I feel that they have a just grievance, and I do urge . that the Prime Minister give consideration to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and allow this parliament to correct that situation.
Not only do the men actually involved feel they have a grievance, but in presenting on their behalf their case to this house and supporting these men I am also representing
(Mr. Higgins.]

the point of view of all the employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Kootenay division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


George Alexander Drew: I think that this raises a question which should carry us back to the discussion which took place in this house last August and early September. It will be recalled that at that time I opposed very strenuously, as did others associated with me, the introduction of legislation which would establish the principle of compulsory arbitration.
Hansard will show that we warned of the dangers of introducing this principle. It is not enough to say that it was necessary to get the railways back in operation. There is no doubt that it was necessary to get the railways back into operation. I wish to repeat what I said before: I am convinced, that, by the way it handled this whole matter, the government was responsible for the railways being out of operation. The government of the country undoubtedly was in a position to speak with some measure of authority, and conveyed the impression not only to the representatives of the union but also to the public that there would be no strike. They left the clear understanding in the minds of the public as well as of the union that they would follow the course they had followed over and over again. There has been a pattern clearly established and, right or wrong, that pattern is one which had led to the conclusion that before the strike actually took place the government itself would become the arbiter and would establish terms which would be regarded as acceptable by both sides.
In view of the fact that the dominion government, through its agency, is the employer of a substantial number of the men affected by the action taken at that time, it was perfectly obvious then and always has been that the government was in a position to make a decision. That continued right up to the last minute.
The strike took place. A strike of that kind, no matter how unsatisfactory it is in every way, is legal under our laws. Therefore we are dealing with legal action, no matter whether one approves of it or not. We are dealing with a situation in which the rights of men have been established by laws passed by parliament. Their rights were rights which required careful recognition.
The strike was under way. The paramount interests of the country, in the minds of

members of parliament, were the interests of a group of men and women who have given this country good and useful service throughout the years. There were these balancing interests.
In that situation a bill was placed before the house which introduced for the first time, as something to be dealt with by the parliament of Canada, the principle of compulsory arbitration. I think that today we must examine what it was those men were given a reasonable right to believe. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) used words which have already been quoted, but which must not be disregarded. These are the words that were read into the record today:
We have endeavoured to treat the whole group who are out, those who have withdrawn from work, as one unit.
No matter whether it was wise or unwise, no matter what the intention of the Prime Minister was-and I feel sure he had no thought of leaving any false impression in the minds of those who relied upon his words -nevertheless it seems to be that those who were affected by the legislation then before the house had reason to believe that all the men and women who were out on strike were going to be dealt with as one unit, and that there would be no exclusion in any decision that might be made.
For that reason I believe there was a natural feeling of surprise and disappointment on the part of those who found themselves excluded, and found that they were not treated as part of one unit. Whatever the merits or otherwise might be in respect of the inclusion of these men and women who, by the report of the commission, have been excluded, I think we must have regard to what they were reasonably led to believe. For that reason I propose to support the amendment which calls for consideration by the government of such steps as would treat all those affected at that time as one unit. In doing so I would repeat every objection I made on that occasion in connection with the introduction of the principle of compulsory arbitration, and say that what has happened has fully confirmed the objections we raised to the introduction of that principle at that time.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take long in discussing this matter, but I believe it is necessary to say a few words. In the discussions we had in the house last fall the conclusions reached were decisive. Legislation was brought down to end the strike, and in that legislation certain concessions were made. As the leader of the opposition has said, the
Hotel and Water Transport Workers principle of compulsory arbitration was introduced for the first time. In that principle I never did believe: I do not believe in compulsory arbitration.
I believe it is apparent from the statement made by the Prime Minister on that, occasion that all hon. members were of the opinion that all parties to the dispute would be treated alike. The Prime Minister's words as recorded in Hansard have already been quoted, so that there is no necessity for my putting them on again. I believe the hotel and water transport workers are justified in believing that they were included in the settlement. When they find now that they are excluded it seems to me they have good grounds for complaint. Without carrying the debate further let me say it is my view that we should support the amendment as proposed.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I too will be brief. This question is one which not only interests but also affects me. I am not particularly concerned about the legal angles in the matter. The justice of a cause always determines its legality, so far as I am concerned, whether statutory provision is made or not.
I disagreed strongly with the settlement of the dispute in the way it was settled. I grew up with the trade union movement. The many lawyers in the house will stand by their principles, but my whole life was spent in the development of the trade union movement. The principles laid down during the course of that development are things I have not forgotten and from which I will not back away very quickly. Those principles were established when there were no high salaried officials in the movement. The men who built up these organizations built them up on the basis of principle, and they fought for them. One of the things that we were always strongly opposed to was compulsory arbitration.
When we were called in in September and faced with a strike of Canadian National Railways employees, a strike that disrupted the whole economy of the country, we had to deal with a most serious matter. In my opinion that is something that should not have been allowed to develop. I think the government had the power to settle a strike of that kind by negotiating in the regular way through collective bargaining. I think the thing was badly bungled when it developed into a stoppage on that transportation system.
When we came to the house and the bill was introduced, as far as I was concerned there was no argument that could be advanced
2622	HOUSE OF
Hotel and Water Transport Workers to convince me that it was necessary to settle the strike in that way. It had got into a bad mess, nevertheless there was another way in which it could have been settled. A controller could have been appointed to work out by regular collective bargaining methods an agreement that would be suitable to all. We violated a principle that is deeply rooted in the trade union movement.
But we did something else; we divided the employees who were involved in that dispute. The pattern of bringing together workers in one industry in the largest possible unit for bargaining purposes is a principle that has been developed over the years. That principle was adopted by the organized workers of this country largely because of what management itself had done. In early days industry absorbed smaller companies and formed them into large units. The argument was used that by concentrating industry in larger units, by absorbing local management and placing everything under one head, a more economical way of operating and managing the industry was achieved. It was contended that overlapping and duplication of services was avoided. Industry began to get bigger and bigger with smaller and smaller groups of management. In order to meet and bargain with industry with some degree of power, this principle was adopted by the labour movement and they organized on an industrial basis with all the workers in a given industry in the one unit. Agreements were worked out that were fair to the employees of the whole industry rather than to work them out section by section on a craft basis.
The railroad workers did not get together overnight the 126,000 employees affected by the agreement. It took them years to bring in the railroad and water transport workers and include them in an over-all agreement and work out some degree of uniformity in the wage rates. They accomplished something when that was done. I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) speak and I thought that the bill which he described was going to preserve unity, at least for the workers involved in the agreement, and that they were going to be treated as one unit. I was rather surprised when the justice of the supreme court made the decision that segregated 9,000 workers from the agreement. I was surprised that the organization itself accepted the agreement that put to one side
9,000	workers who had been included in the previous agreement when the strike took place.
I think great injustice was done. We can talk all day about the legality of the thing,


but in my opinion the injustice is that 9,000 workers who were under the agreement were discriminated against and the one bargaining unit which had been built up over the years was disrupted. It was a backward step in my opinion for that organization to have that group of workers segregated from their agreement. If there was any doubt in the mind of the arbitrator as to what the government meant when the bill was enacted, there was no doubt in our minds. I think every member of this house interpreted the bill to mean that the railway workers were going to remain intact as one bargaining unit and that whatever agreement was arrived at would be applicable to all the employees involved in the dispute. If hon. members of this house think that that was the intention of the government, then the thing for us to do is to correct matters by accepting this amendment.
The argument that has been advanced over the years by the railroads has been that they were not making any money. Canadian National Railways were able to show definitely that they had deficits of $45 million a year and the taxpayers of this country were paying that bill. I reiterate what I have said many times in this house, that that deficit of the Canadian National Railways was made up largely of interest on bonds with which the system should not be saddled. But despite all that we find that last year Canadian National Railways made a very good showing; they carried the load and wiped out the deficit with the exception of $3 million. There can be no argument on the basis of income as far as either the C.P.R. or the C.N.R. is concerned that they should not include the
9,000	workers who have been kept outside the agreement. They made money last year.
I suggest that the members of this house realize that an injustice was done. The money involved in straightening out that agreement would be quite small. I think we should tell the railroad workers that we feel that there was an error on the part of those who finalized this agreement, that the intentions of parliament under the bill were not carried out, and we are now instructing them to reform the bargaining unit and to make the increases given to one section of employees applicable to the 9,000 workers who were left outside the agreement.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say on this matter. When the house met on August 30 I commended the government very highly for including the hotel and water transport personnel in the bill that they presented1 to

parliament. In keeping them as a unit I thought there had been a very considerable achievement. I was under the impression that they were all going to be treated alike. I was unnaturally surprised when I read the judgment. I cannot - add anything more to what has been said already except to quote the words, of a middle bencher during the last debate to be found1 on page 41 of Hansard of August 30, 1950, as follows:
It is true that compulsion can force the parties to submit to a given procedure. It may even force them to accept unwillingly certain results. But I think this house knows very well that forced obedience generates resistance and hostility. Far from being a cure, it is a source of further conflict and it multiplies strife instead of preventing it. Compulsion never removes the cause of the strife. Forced obedience against the will of those concerned sows the seeds of bitterness and resentment and in the end aggravates the very condition it was sought to cure.
I do not like being in the position where I can stand up and say, "I told you so," but I did tell you so.


Mr. Paul E. Cole (Parliamentary Assislanl to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker,
there have been perhaps seven or eight members who have spoken in support of the amendment, while on this side of the house we have heard but one voice raised in opposition to the amendment. That was the voice of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and he has given ample reason why this amendment should be voted down by the house.
I do not intend to speak for very long; I do not need to do so, after having listened very carefully to the remarks of the Prime Minister immediately following those of the mover of the' amendment. I would like to add this word, however. Much stress is placed upon the similarity of interest that existed at the time of the dispute and still exists between the hotel and water transport workers on the one hand and the railway workers on the other. I could have asked the mover of the amendment whether those two groups have much more in common than the fact that they work for the same management. I could have asked whether it was not true that as far as the hotel workers of the Canadian Pacific Railway were concerned, because of the character of their industry they could not claim to come under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and consequently were not involved in the dispute or in the award later made by Mr. Justice Kellock. To my mind this shows that these two groups belong to basically different industries. They happen to be linked together by the identity of the employer on the one hand and on the other by the identity of the bargaining unit to 80709-168
2. 1951	2623
Hotel and Water Transport Workers which they belong. In the mind of the government and of parliament, which approved the proposal of the government last August, the hotel and water transport workers were not really engaged in an industry: which it was essential to have resumed at that time by an act of parliament. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, [DOT] it was only because of the fact that they belonged to the same bargaining unit that parliament thought it would be preferable not to have anything done that would amount to discrimination, in order not to jeopardize the fulfilment of the provision of the act which had to do with the resumption of operations,
My hon. friend will understand that had we legislated only for the resumption of operations by the railways there would have been grave doubts whether the railway workers would have obeyed such an order, if by so doing they might think they were being disloyal toward their brother workers of the other categories. It was only to discharge the obligation placed upon this parliament by section 91 of the British North America Act that parliament intervened to safeguard the peace, order and good government of this country and restore an essential service.
Personally I am of the opinion that the great mass of railway workers in this country are completely satisfied with the award of Mr. Justice Kellock, judging by the very few grievances that have been sent to the Department of Labour since that time by the local unions, the ordinary workers in the country. The riding I represent has perhaps a majority of railway workers. Judging from the reaction to this award in my own riding, I am quite satisfied that the very great majority of railway workers approved it. So I see no very good reason, based on the merits of the case, why parliament should intervene again in order to modify in any way the award of Mr. Justice Kellock. I do not say the hotel workers would not be justified in trying to bargain for more than they are getting, and they will have the opportunity to do so. When their contract terminates they may follow the usual negotiation procedure; and as the Prime Minister said, there is no reason why they should not try to get better working conditions and rates of pay if they so desire. At this time, however, parliament should not intervene because the reasons which justified the intervention of parliament last fall no longer exist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member has not the right of reply in moving an amendment.

Hotel and Water Transport Workers


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct. I know that the mover of an amendment has no right to reply. But I was asking if I could put a question to the hon. member before he concluded his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whatever may have been the circumstances that threw these two groups together, and whatever may be the size of the smaller group, does not the hon. member think the promise made to them on the floor of parliament last fall should be carried out?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: The only
interpretation I can place upon the statement which has been quoted several times this afternoon, that both groups would be treated as a unit, is that this was the only basis which would justify parliament in passing an act ordering the resumption of work by both groups. Parliament could have passed an act having to do only with the railway workers; but in order to do away with any excuse the railway workers might have had for not resuming operations because of their fellow workers being left out in the cold, as it were, the groups were joined together and one act of parliament was passed to apply to both. But I say the words of the Prime Minister at that time cannot be interpreted as a direction to Mr. Justice Kellock to treat both groups as a unit. They were intended to show that the groups were being treated as a unit in the formulation of policy by the government, in the bill that was presented, and in the determination of the questions which were to be submitted to the arbitrator, and that was all. From then on the arbitrator was a free man in a free democracy, to find as his conscience and intellect might dictate.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: The hon. member for Verdun-La Salle (Mr. Cote) has said he sees no reason for interfering with this award. I say that if there were nothing else, the very fact that this is a small group would be one paramount reason we should feel that it is up to this parliament to reconsider this matter. Much was said by the hon. member as to the interpretation to be placed upon the words uttered by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) last year. At page 75 of Hansard for August 30, 1950, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is recorded as having said, with reference to the treatment of the hotel and water workers:
They are not being discriminated against in any mended to parliament, has treated them in the same way as the other unions, namely, as one unit; and way. The government, in the bill which it recom-everything that binds the arbitrator with respect to

any one binds him as much with respect to those two small groups as it does to the others.
I think it is significant, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) was apparently under the impression that the Prime Minister's words definitely included the hotel and water transport workers.
I have here a newspaper report of the award published after it was made. It deals at some length with the impression that had been abroad that what was said in the commons carried implications that went further than the statute, including the words of the Prime Minister. I quote from the article:
Explaining the inclusion of the hotel and water employees in the statutory award, Mr. St. Laurent told the house:
This is the quotation in the newspaper report, Mr. Speaker, and although I have not found it in Hansard I do not doubt that it was copied from Hansard. This appears in the Globe and Mail of December 20, 1950.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, these words are in quotes in this article, and I do not doubt but that they were copied faithfully from Hansard.
It was represented to us that all these unions were banded together for the promotion of a common cause and that it would appear to them that any action that was taken which did not apply to all of them and to which any of them submitted would be regarded as a betrayal of some of those who had banded together for the promotion of a common cause. That was something which it was Said would appear to them to be wrong for any parliament to ask them to do. In drawing our legislation, we reluctantly came to the conclusion that that was a feeling which probably existed in the breasts of the men themselves and which it would not be politic to attempt to override.
Mr. Speaker, that was the impression which every member of this house had when those words were spoken. There was a full attendance in this house. We all sat and listened, and that was our impression. We were as surprised and disappointed as the men were when the report of the arbitrator was brought down. There are many groups in this country who have suffered because of this award. I have reference in particular to one group, the international brotherhood of blacksmiths, drop forgers and helpers. Some of the members of this union are working in the dockyards in British Columbia, and they are classed as water workers, while their fellows who do identical work in the railroad yards are classed as rail workers. It is not right. I feel it was not the intention of this house. I honestly do not feel it was the intention of the Prime Minister when he spoke those words in the house at the time the matter was under consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment of the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


EXCISE TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide:
1.	That the rate of the general sales tax be increased from eight to ten per cent and that the rate of sales tax on those articles at present subject to four per cent be increased to five per cent.
2.	That the excise tax on goods mentioned in schedule I of the act, and on furs, that are at present subject to the rate of fifteen per cent be increased to twenty-five per cent.
3.	That the excise tax on candy, chocolate, chewing gum and confectionery that may be classed as candy or a substitute for candy, be reduced from thirty to fifteen per cent.
4.	That there be imposed, levied and collected an excise tax of fifteen per cent on the following goods when adapted to household or apartment use:
(a) stoves, hot plates, grills and other appliances when adapted wholly or in part for cooking and when designed for using other than solid fuels;
[Stage Direction]
Excise TaX'Act
(b)	washing machines operated by electric or
other power;	"
(c)	electric, gas or kerosene refrigerators and freezing equipment and complete parts therefor including coils, condensing or compressor units, motors, cabinets, boxes, evaporators and expansion valves.
5.	That the excise tax' on cigarette papers and cigarette paper tubes be repealed.
6.	That the excise tax on the following goods be increased by the amounts * shown:
(a)	for each five cigarettes or fraction ol five cigarettes contained in. any package, three-quarters of one cent;
(b)	for each ounce or fraction of an ounce of manufactured tobacco, including snuff but not including cigars and cigarettes, contained in any package, three cents;
(c)	for each ounce or fraction of an ounce of Canadian raw leaf tobacco when sold for consumption in Canada, three-quarters of one cent.
7.	That the sales tax on the following goods be repealed;
(a)	cortisone;
(b)	adrenocorticotrophin (ACTH).
8.	That any enactment founded upon this resolution be deemed to have come into force on the eleventh day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to take the time of the committee going over the ground again with regard to the arguments for and against the sales tax-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -except to say-


Gordon Graydon: You asked for it, and you got it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -that what three weeks ago was in the realm of prediction with regard to what would happen, now is quite clearly in the realm of fact. It has become clear that the effect of this tax is going to be to raise prices, and therefore the argument which was used against it, as I say, already is confirmed by the fact. But what I rise really to do, Mr. Chairman, is before this vote is taken-and here I am really following to some extent what the hon. member for Red Deer said yesterday-to remind the committee of the device which has been used by the government majority to prevent free expression of opinion in this committee on this question. We have here the excise tax items, eight in all. The sensible thing to do, as was pointed out, is to consider them seriatim; but that would have removed from the government one advantage which they saw in dealing with them together.
If they had dealt with them seriatim, if the first one had to be voted on by itself, then, as the hon. member for Red Deer pointed out yesterday, a good many Liberal members would have been in great difficulty.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They can vote on them when they come to the bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will come to that; That is the point which the minister made. I noted that point with, great interest the other night, and I will do him the honour of referring to it before I am through. I just wanted to say that, as the hon. member for Red Deer made very clear yesterday, I have no doubt that a great many Liberal members of this house are finding exactly what those of us who are not Liberal members are finding, namely, that the voters in our constituencies are very much opposed to this increase in the sales tax. I imagine that voters in other constituencies represented by Liberals have the same kind of stomachs that voters in Conservative or other opposition ridings have. I imagine they have bodies that need the same kind of clothes to warm them, and we may hope that when the next election comes around they will have the same kind of heads.
I just want to point out that I think this device is an unworthy and rather a shabby one, taking away the right of free expression. I think that if somehow it could be vividly brought to the minds of the voters they would disapprove of it very much. I was interested to observe that the Minister of Finance said that when we came to the measure on the sales tax we would then have a certain number of sections which we could vote for or against. That seemed to me a curious argument, because-


Douglas Charles Abbott: When we come to the Excise Tax Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes. I thought that was a curious argument because it seemed to me that, whereas at that time we shall be able to have this one item split into several clauses so that we may give our views on each one, now we have quite a lot of other things thrown into one pot so that we may deal with them together. Of course the argument of Liberal members will be perfectly obvious. They will say: What did you want us to do with regard to the reduction of the excise tax on candy? Did you not want us to vote for that? Surely, you did not want us to vote against that. Well, if we did vote for it we had to vote for the whole lot together.
That is really the point that I wish to bring forward. I think that is a shabby and unworthy way of dealing with this thing, as was pointed out the other day. Apart from all other reasons, we really have made ourselves look silly by cruising over the ground backwards and forwards, and now we -have

to give this vote, which I say is a very unreal vote, because a great many people are going to vote with their hands tied.


The Deputy Chairman:: Perhaps now is as good a time as any to give a further explanation on the question that was raised the other day by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and again today by the hon. member for Greenwood, namely, this matter of considering a resolution of this type seriatim. This question of procedure was settled the other day on the motion moved by the leader of the opposition, which motion was negatived. Some surprise has been expressed as to why, when we study clauses of bills seriatim, the same cannot be done when considering a resolution of this kind. Let me dispose of this one point by quoting standing order 76, which says:
In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.
Citation 774 in Beauchesne, second edition, at page 222, says:
The bill is considered clause by clause. The chairman usually calls out the number of each clause, and reads the marginal note but he should give the clause at length when it is demanded' by the committee. Each clause is a distinct question and. must be separately discussed. When a clause has been agreed' to it is irregular to discuss it again on the consideration of another clause.
Therefore it is clear that the reason for proceeding clause by clause in committee on a bill is that it is so set out in standing order 76. Hon. members will agree that this matter of what is referred to as a complicated question is an important one. Since it was raised the other day by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-as a matter of fact, it was on Thursday last-opportunity has been had to study the problem with some care, and I am now prepared to give a further explanation.
In the first place, it is my view that what is before the committee is a single resolution. As hon. members know, under our practice a taxing bill cannot be introduced until a resolution has first been considered in the committee of ways and means. The present motion is a single resolution anticipatory of a number of tax changes to be contained! in a bill amending the Excise Tax Act.
To say that the resolution before the committee is a single resolution does not of course dispose of the question. It may be argued that since the resolution is composed of a number of distinct propositions it is open to any member to require that
Excise Tax Act
each proposition be put separately. In this connection, reliance has been placed on a passage in Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, at page 298, which seems open to the construction that a difference exists between complicated questions and questions containing two or more distinct propositions. However, the authorities which Bourinot quotes indicate that a so-called "complicated question" is one which contains a number of separate propositions which are capable of being divided, and that, although a member does not have the right to insist that they be so divided, a motion to that effect would be in order.
I think perhaps I should quote at some length from Hatsell, upon whom Bourinot relies. The following appears in his "Precedents", volume 2, at pages 118-121. It is rather lengthy, and I would ask hon. members to remain as silent as possible, so that they may give their attention to this very important quotation, which says:
When a question is complicated, that is, consists of two or more propositions, it has been often said, that it is the right of any one member to have it divided, in order that he may give his opinion upon each proposition separately. This was a very favourite topic with Mr. George Grenville, and often repeated by him, and at last insisted upon so much, in the question about the Middlesex election, on the 16th of February, 1770, that it was thought necessary to take the sense of the house upon it; which was done by a question, and carried in the negative, on the 19th of February: so that this matter is now at rest. Upon this occasion, every thing was urged that could be said in favour of the doctrine, as laid down by Mr. Grenville; but the truth is, there does not appear the smallest trace, in the history of the proceedings of either house of parliament, of this ever having been the practice; indeed, it would introduce universal confusion; for who is to decide whether a question is complicated or not?-"where'' it is complicated?-into how many propositions it may be divided? Perhaps, when the question was formed by the Speaker from the debate, and not moved by a member, it was a very proper objection to the manner of the Speaker's stating a question, that it was complicated, and to desire that he would separate it; and to this and this only, every thing that is said in the case of Ashby and White, and in the other debates, may be referred:	But when a
question is moved and seconded, and proposed from the chair, however complicated it may be, the only mode of separating it, is by moving amendments to it; and these must be decided by the house, upon a question: unless, which sometimes happens, that the house "order" that it shall be divided, as they did in that very instance of the 19th of February; and on the 2nd of June, 1795; or by "consent" of the house, as on the 25th of January, 1771; the 9th of April, 1772; and in Lord Clive's case, on the 21st of May, 1773. Indeed, the doctrine of any one member having a "right" to insist upon anything, appears to be absurd; for another member may insist upon the contrary; and therefore, in all cases whatever,-
And I insist upon these last few words, -the only method of deciding whether anything shall, or shall not, be done, or how it shall be done,

Excise Tax Act
must be by moving a question to the house, that question to be seconded, and proposed from the chair, and the sense of the house taken upon it.
Cuishing, another author, in his "Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 1874", at pages 528 and 529, defines a complicated question as one which contains a number of distinct propositions and which is severable by motion but not on demand. And' the fifteenth edition of May recites at page 391 that the right of individual members to insist on the division of resolutions in committees of the whole house has never been recognized in England1,
In view of the foregoing, it is my ruling that when a single resolution containing several distinct propositions is before the committee of ways and means, it cannot be divided at the instance of any individual member, although a motion to so divide the resolution would be in order. It is for the committee to decide whether any particular resolution should be so divided. In so ruling, I am not unmindful of the fact that very often there is great convenience in proceeding severally with the various propositions embraced within a single resolution. However, as I have said, this is for the committee, and not the chairman, to decide.
I thought I should put this lengthy ruling on the record, because it clears up the question of whether a member as a matter of right has the privilege of asking that a question be divided, and also the point that this matter is not one for the chairman to decide, but that it must be done by a motion moved by a member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question based
upon the ruling just given? Before asking the question, however, perhaps I might be pardoned for expressing the hope that in future discussions on points of order some of the rest of us will not be criticized if we bring forward citations from 1875 or 1800, or even back as far as 1770.


Alphonse Fournier: You have done it
before.


Douglas Charles Abbott: So long as they are good, we like to have them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, but at times I have
produced precedents from much more recent years only to be told that I have had to go a long way back. The question I wish to ask is this: Do you regard the motion of last Thursday, which the house rejected that day, as binding upon all succeeding days; or do you regard that as a motion covering only the procedure of that day? The point is this, that on Thursday last the house decided, by a vote, that it would not deal with this resolution paragraph by paragraph.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Douglas Charles Abbott: We said that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It settled it for that day, but does it settle it for today or does it settle it for succeeding days? Would Your Honour accept a motion now to consider this resolution-today-paragraph by paragraph? It seems to me that at some stage it might be a good idea to find a way in which to make some progress With this matter. I am sure that the government must be rather annoyed that this debate goes on day after day and when the end of the day comes no progress has been made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would my hon. friend permit me to ask a question? If this resolution had been drawn, as it might well have been, with no numbered paragraphs but with commas or semicolons between the different items, as resolutions that appear on the order paper often are, how would he have framed his motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he and I should not talk about commas. Let us leave commas and periods to two of his fellow ministers.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Will the hon. member permit me to reply to his question now? The motion that was moved the other day cannot apply to any other resolution but the one to amend the Excise Tax Act. The vote that was taken is binding as long as the excise tax resolution is before the committee because that was the judgment of the house. Of course, the committee can always change its decision by unanimous consent. This would not prevent an hon. member moving a motion, for instance, that the resolution dealing with the Income Tax Act be divided. Does that answer my hon. friend's question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I accept it as your answer. May I make a suggestion? In doing this I hope it will be appreciated that I am really holding out an olive branch. I will not be surprised if other members of the opposition do not agree with the suggestion I intend to make. The majority of the house has decided that we are not to deal with this resolution paragraph by paragraph. Obviously the purpose of that is that we will not vote on it paragraph by paragraph.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No it is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is to follow the correct rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute; when I am throwing out an olive branch, it might be a good idea to wait and see what I have to offer. Would it be possible to have unanimous consent that we organize our discussion paragraph by paragraph, even though we do not

vote at the end of each section, but only when the whole resolution is concluded?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think we have taken up a little too much time with this procedural argument. This resolution relates to a bill to amend the Excise Tax Act, which involves various commodity taxes. They are all the same type of tax although on different commodities. I submit that any member of the house should be free at any time when this resolution is under discussion to refer to any of these taxes. One hon. member may be interested in the sales tax and another may be interested in the candy tax and not interested in any other. My suggestion is that it is much more logical and appropriate and fairer that all hon. members should have the right, as long as this resolution is under discussion, to refer to any of the commodity taxes which are involved in it.
That is my suggestion for the consideration of the committee. Other considerations may apply in connection with other resolutions, and I take no position on that. I think it is completely logical, I think it is completely proper, where we are dealing with a resolution which imposes commodity taxes alone, that any hon. member should be free to talk about any item that is included in the resolution.	j


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am amazed at the position taken by the Minister of Finance. I have never heard that position taken, before. I ask him to face this fact. On each day that this resolution has been before the committee, when the end of the day has come it has been impossible to measure whether or not we have made any progress.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I say that that is not the fault of the minister or his parliamentary assistant.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I suggest that perhaps we have discussed this question of procedure at sufficient length and that we should continue with a study of the merits of the resolution.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, I think I have about three minutes left and I do not propose to waste those three minutes. I have been giving a lot of consideration to the minister's budget statement and I have also been giving a good deal of consideration to what my constituents are telling me. They say to me, "We are opposed to the commodity taxes that the minister has suggested he will impose as a result of his budget and we want you to oppose those taxes." I realize that some people would oppose anything, but I think the people in the country have good reason for opposing these taxes.
Excise Tax Act
Surely we have to be sensitive to the will of the people. I propose to be sensitive to their demands, especially if they have good cause or if there is something behind them. When the minister was explaining in his budget speech why he had decided to impose certain commodity taxes he said that he wanted to establish as nearly as possible a balance as between income tax, on the one hand, and commodity taxes on the other. He said that was one reason why he had decided to get something like $100 million out of the sales tax, and probably from $15 million to $25 million out of the special excise taxes and so on.
At various times since the budget was brought down either the minister or his parliamentary assistant has said that if we had other ideas about where he might get the revenue we ought to bring them forward. In the short time that I have I propose to place before the minister at least one alternative to which he could have turned to get the revenue he will require this year, and perhaps one or two others.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr.   SI Laurent moved@: the adjournment of the house.
He said: With respect to the not too remarkable rate of progress we have been making for the last few days it has occurred to some of us that it might be wise to determine in advance what we propose to do next week, and that by doing that in advance it might be hoped that better results will be achieved. I understand from the representatives of the three groups that it would suit their convenience and the convenience of members of their groups if on Monday we took up as the first order of business a motion by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to refer his estimates to the committee on external affairs. I have no doubt that there may be some general debate on external affairs, but I would hope it can be completed in the course of the day. The estimates of that department could then be referred to the committee on external affairs and the committee could get down to its usual work.
Then on Tuesday we would take up the defence estimates. Tuesday is a day when we have to make a motion to go into supply; but we would make that motion not for the purpose of opening any new departments, but merely for the purpose of getting into com-

Business of the House
mittee of supply and discussing the defence 'estimates on Tuesday and Wednesday. If that met the wishes or feelings of all hon. members, I think it would be desirable to have those two important topics debated during the first days of next week.


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue the study of the budget resolutions.
If those pass we will take up the resolutions in the name of the Prime Minister concerning Laurier house and Kingsmere park; then bill No. 79, respecting Indians. If we have time left we will take up Bills Nos. 191, 192 and 195.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.05 p.m.

Thursday, May 3, 1951